1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2781 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Vancouver Island Energy Authority Act (Bill M210). Mr. Skelly.

Introduction and first reading –– 2781

Oral Questions.

Ocean Falls Corporation contracts. Mr. Barrett –– 2782

Water pollution. Mr. Gabelmann –– 2782

Northern transmission studies. Mr. Passarell –– 2783

Policing costs. Mr. Macdonald –– 2783

Student housing. Mrs. Dailly –– 2783

Recreation Association insurance coverage. Mr. Barnes –– 2784

Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 21). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2784

Mr. Levi –– 2786

Mr. Gabelmann –– 2789

Mr. Barber –– 2790

Mr. Cocke –– 2795

Ms. Brown –– 2797

Mr. Mitchell –– 2798

Mrs. Dailly –– 2800

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2800

College and Institute Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 15). Committee stage.

section 4.

Mr. Lauk –– 2801

On the amendment to

section 4.

Mr. Leggatt –– 2802

Mr. Nicolson –– 2802

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2803

Mrs. Dailly –– 2803

Mr. Lauk –– 2804

Division on the amendment –– 2804

Division on

section 4 –– 2804

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in welcoming a very

distinguished group of young Canadian and British Columbian citizens to

our chamber today. In the gallery are the students from Eric Hamber

school, who are the winners of this year's "Reach for the Top" program,

which is a program shown on the CBC that allows students to show and

develop their skills and exhibit the knowledge they've learned. As such

they become to other students in their school a mark of excellence that

they might well emulate. These students then become worthy....

I'm

having difficulty with the word, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, I never won on

"Reach for the Top." They become worthy examples not only to their

classmates, but to parents and families in British Columbia. Let me

introduce them and their coach individually. The students are Ethan

Menovitz, David Freedman, Neil Chisholm and George Panagopoulos, and

their coach is Veronica Deans. Would the House please join me in

welcoming them and recognizing their achievement.

MRS. WALLACE:

For every contest where there are winners there must also be losers,

Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to have two groups of young people from

the Cowichan Senior Secondary School here today who also competed in

the "Reach for the Top" program. I would like the House to join me in

welcoming the two grade 11 classes who are in the gallery, one at 2

o'clock and the other at 3, along with their teacher Mr. Wagg.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I would like to take the opportunity to introduce and ask the House to

make welcome a former room-mate of the Leader of the Opposition: Jimmy

Rhodes, a former member of this Legislative Assembly.

MR. BARRETT:

When making an introduction, I don't often find myself indebted to the

member for Langley. Jimmy was my room-mate and he was the one

responsible for bringing a crow into the corridors at the time when we

offered it up to the former Premier when he nationalized the B.C.

Electric Company. Along with Mr. Rhodes is a prominent British

Columbian, Mr. John Southworth.

HON. MR. CURTIS: All

of us in this House are aware of the hard work and effort advanced on a

day in, day out basis by locally elected representatives. From time to

time we have mayors and aldermen from British Columbia's municipalities

in the gallery and we welcome them warmly. Today it is my pleasure to

introduce and ask the House to recognize a relatively newly elected

member of a municipal council. I refer to Alderman Jay Rangel of the

municipality of North Saanich.

MR. SKELLY: I would

ask the House to welcome Doug Stewart, a former constituent of mine,

and also ask the House to join me in congratulating him on his recent

graduation from the University of Victoria law school.

HON. MR. MAIR:

I would like to join in welcoming the students from Eric Hamber. I d

like to take this opportunity of saying that wherever there is a winner

there is also a runner-up, and this year's runner-up — and next year's

champion — is Westsyde Secondary School in Kamloops.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

We have in the gallery today two constituents of mine from Sergeant Bay

near Pender Harbour, Mr. and Mrs. Art Angell, and I ask the House to

join me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Two of the "Reach for the Top" contestants and winners are from Vancouver South, so there is a special welcome to them.

The

caucus of the Social Credit Party had a delegation visiting today from

the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union, and I would ask the

House to welcome the members who were visiting with us earlier: Mr.

Jack Nichol, Bill Procopation, George Hewison, Frank Cox, and Jeff

Meggs.

MR. BARNES: With us this afternoon are two

constituents of mine. Ken and Adrianne Hawse were recently married in

New York, and I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming

them, and congratulating them as well.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Although there has been a lot of comment regarding the "Reach for the

Top" program, I'd like to introduce three gentlemen who probably

couldn't compete very well with the students. [Laughter.] However,

their organization, the B.C. Dairy Council, does co-sponsor the "Reach

for the Top" program. I'd like to introduce to the House and have it

welcome Mr. Peter Friesen, from the Fraser Valley Milk Producers

Association, Mr. John Pendray of the Vancouver Island milk producers,

and Mr. Bill 1nglis from the B.C. Dairy Council.

MR. KING:

I just wanted to briefly welcome back to the Legislature a prominent

British Columbian who was conspicuous by his absence yesterday, the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips).

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, there are two people in the gallery today who were missed. I would like to have them welcomed by the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, with us in the gallery today is the ombudsman for British

Columbia, Dr. Karl Friedmann. I now present and table his first annual

statutory report. At the same time I would ask the House to welcome him.

Introduction of Bills

VANCOUVER ISLAND

ENERGY AUTHORITY ACT

On a motion by Mr. Skelly, Bill M210,

Vancouver Island Energy Authority Act, introduced, read a first time

and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 2782 ]

Oral Questions

OCEAN FALLS CORPORATION CONTRACTS

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, after a 24-hour delay, I would like to address a question

to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. Can the

minister tell the House when he was first notified that Ocean Falls

Corporation would not be able to fill its contract with the Los Angeles Times ?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I want to thank the member for the first question this session and

advise him that due to the fact that it is a specific question, I don't

have the date right at my fingertips. I would be most pleased indeed to

take the question as notice and bring him back the information when I

have an opportunity.

MR. BARRETT: Could the minister

inform the House when he had an idea that there might be a problem with

the contract — not the specific date, not the specific time, but in

general terms?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the

Leader of the Opposition knows full well that I don't talk in

generalities, that I always talk in specifics. He should know better

than to ask me that question.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, now that we know the minister doesn't talk in generalities, can he tell us his full name within five minutes?

second question to the minister is: was the minister consulted at the

time the contract was signed between Ocean Falls and the Los Angeles Times in 1978?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question, knowing as I do the

history of Ocean Falls. I remember when I was in opposition asking the

leader of the government of the day questions about Ocean Falls and a

contract that we were interested in. He didn't know anything about what

was going on at Ocean Falls. I will certainly try to get the answer to

that question for him; but he knows full well that we have people

running Ocean Falls. The minister, because of his many and varied

duties, is not privy to all of the day-to-day decisions that go on in

every Crown corporation for which he is responsible. The Leader of the

Opposition knows that. He knows it is just a trick question. I remember

asking him questions when I was in opposition about the operation of

Ocean Falls. Even Bob Williams, who was running it at the time, didn't

know.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you very much for the trick answer.

The

third question I have is very simple and plain — almost plain enough

for everybody to understand. Is the minister prepared to table the

contract signed between Ocean Falls and the Los Angeles Times ?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question as well. I remember

trying to get copies of a secret contract which somebody in New York

was using as a go-between selling paper for Ocean Falls, when they were

responsible for Ocean Falls. I want to tell the House and the public

that the Leader of the Opposition, through trying to make politics out

of a difficult situation and a very necessary decision on behalf of

this government, is hampering the directors and the manager of Ocean

Falls in what could be negotiations on a ticklish matter — no doubt

about it. That Leader of the Opposition is still up to his old tricks.

He's not interested in the province of British Columbia. He's not

interested in the taxpayers of British Columbia. He's playing cheap

politics.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the

bending of the rules and a response from the minister. The minister, in

his rhetoric, forgot the question. Is the minister prepared to table

with this House the contract between Ocean Falls and the Los Angeles Times ?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

As I said before, I'm quite willing to follow the precedents set in

this House by the Leader of the Opposition when he was in government.

MR. BARRETT:

Now that the minister is committed to tabling the contract, I would

like to ask him if, to his knowledge, there are any other contracts

that have now been terminated by the closure of Ocean Falls.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

There could very well be other contracts. Maybe the Leader of the

Opposition would like to enter into negotiations that we're having with

the other contractors so that he can make cheap politics out of what I

say is a very difficult decision for this government to make, but one

that had to be made because of the mess that outfit left us when they

were government.

MR. BARRETT: I appreciate the answer

of the minister. If he's inviting me to participate in the negotiations

to clean up his mess, I would require the government to resign first,

and that would be a fortuitous thing.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear the last question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There was no question, hon. member.

WATER POLLUTION

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Environment.

Residents of Campbell River are concerned that the pollution in Buttle

Lake, which is already toxic to aquatic life, will find its way into

their water systems. The first question is: can the minister inform the

House as to the immediate action he has taken to safeguard the water

supply of the Campbell River area?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No action whatsoever, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GABELMANN:

The second question is: has the minister decided to advance the

deadline that was set to end the obvious poisoning of that lake? Some

time ago there was a deadline set — I believe 1983 — to have that lake

cleaned up. In view of the obvious and urgent problem in the Campbell

River area now, has the minister decided to advance that deadline?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I don't believe that the matter has

[ Page 2783 ]

been

stressed with the urgency which the member has indicated. Some reports

have come to me in the last couple of days which I'll be looking at,

but so far I haven't made a decision.

MR. GABELMANN: Before I ask some other questions, I hope the decision is soon.

another matter, to the same minister, Port Hardy's rainwater has

traditionally been among the purest in Canada. The federal atmospheric

environment service advises that rain samples collected there indicate

increasing levels of acidity — acid rain, as it is more commonly

referred to. First, can the minister advise the House what steps he has

taken to investigate the cause of the increased acidity; and further,

what action has he taken to eliminate the cause of the pollution at its

source?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The first thing is to

determine the source of the acid rain and the acidity. Until such time

as that is determined it is not possible to make a decision.

might tell you that in view of the question you asked me earlier on in

the week and inquiries I made with the air management branch of the

ministry, there are people on site now. The problem is quite a lot more

complex than it would appear on first notice, and that's why I've taken

your original question as notice. I hope to have a detailed answer to

table in the House later on this week.

MR. GABELMANN:

Has the minister decided to set up a monitoring program in the Port

Alice area and in the surrounding lakes to determine the level of acid

rain created by the excessive sulphur dioxide emissions from the Port

Alice pulpmill? It is a bit more specific question than the minister

was answering before.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I have asked

members of the staff to go to Port Alice and monitor the situation and

determine what the problem is, but I haven't made a decision as to

whether there will be additional, permanent monitoring stations in the

Port Alice area.

NORTHERN TRANSMISSION STUDIES

MR. PASSARELL:

I have a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources. Following my questions last week, can the minister advise

whether he has checked with B.C. Hydro to determine whether any of the

northern transmission studies were conducted without consulting various

groups of people who will be directly affected by the project?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I took that question as notice, and I will be reporting in due course.

MR. PASSARELL:

I have a new question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise the House

if he has decided that any group which is not brought into the

consultation process by B.C. Hydro will be adequately funded to conduct

its own studies into the socio-economic impact prior to the public

hearings?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have a request for rewording the question, hon. member.

MR. PASSARELL:

Mr. Speaker, I'll speak a little bit slower for the older member. Can

the minister advise the House if he has decided that any group not

brought into the consultation process by B.C. Hydro will be adequately

funded to conduct its own studies into socio-economic impact prior to

public hearings?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker,

the question assumes that there is an answer to the first question that

the member asked, and I've taken that question as notice.

might just say at this point that wonder if we could get a ruling from

the Speaker on questions taken as notice. It's really difficult to

answer subsequent questions when a question has been taken on notice,

until the time comes when the minister brings back the answer. I've

given the undertaking that I will bring back the answer to the original

question, and I will do so at the first opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

POLICING COSTS

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Attorney-General. The B.C. Police

Commission made recommendations with respect to policing costs in

municipalities. Has the Attorney-General decided to implement any of

those recommendations to relieve the burden of costs on the local

taxpayers?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the member

is mistaken with regard to recommendations from the B.C. Police

Commission with respect to such financing. The government has before

it, as I have said publicly on a number of occasions, the results of an

intergovernmental study into the question of financing police costs in

this province, and that matter is under current and active review in

association not only with those municipalities who have their own

police forces but with respect to the policing of other areas in the

province as well.

MR. MACDONALD: I think the

Attorney-General is right that the thing was broader than the B.C.

Police Commission, but how many things has he got under review at the

present time? He's got more reviews than on the Great White Way on

Broadway.

STUDENT HOUSING

MRS. DAILLY:

A question to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. I think we're

all aware that every September severe housing problems are faced by the

students in our B.C. universities and colleges. Simon Fraser University

projects a need of 400 units this coming September, and naturally they

have on hand only 50 listings, most of which are in the high-rental

category. My question to the minister is: what steps has the minister

in charge of housing for this province taken to alleviate this chronic

housing shortage faced by our students?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice.

[ Page 2784 ]

MRS. DAILLY:

When the minister takes that as notice, I wonder if he would also be

prepared to consult with his colleague, the minister in charge of

universities and colleges (Hon. Mr. McGeer). We'll await very eagerly

their reply, because I don't think the students can afford to wait too

long.

RECREATION ASSOCIATION

INSURANCE COVERAGE

MR. BARNES: A question to the

Provincial Secretary. I wonder if the Provincial Secretary is aware of

a study recently conducted by the B.C. Recreation Association on the

availability of liability insurance to the recreation commissions and

associations. It was found that of some 84 respondents about 25 percent

had no insurance whatsoever, and of those who did have, another 25

percent were underinsured.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr.

Speaker, I thank the member for this question. I have some knowledge of

such a report. I don't have any information arising from it, but I'd be

glad to take the question as notice and report back.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to answer a question put on the order paper by

the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) addressed to the Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers). I regret the 24-hour delay, because of

change of jurisdiction, in responding to Question 39.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 21, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 1980.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Earlier this

session I tabled the bill entitled Residential Tenancy Amendment Act,

1980. For the information of members in the House, the bill extends

protection to those tenants who have had insufficient remedies against

what have been considered as abuses in the present rental market, while

simultaneously increasing the acceptability of landlord-and-tenant

regulations to the investment community in British Columbia. Most of

the changes reflect numerous meetings with tenants and landlords,

individually and with their associations.

Over the past two

years the rentalsman's office has conducted an in-depth analysis of

landlord-and-tenant relations and the legislation which we have

available for that purpose within the present market conditions. I

appreciate that this is a controversial area of legislation and that no

combination of amendments can possibly satisfy everyone. However, we in

the ministry and in the rentalsman's office have attempted to remove

the inequities which were identified facing both landlords and tenants

and in most instances to simplify procedures for all concerned.

Before

presenting the substance of the amendments I would like to summarize

some of the issues that have been generated as need for changes.

The office of the rentalsman was set up towards the end of 1974 primarily to

assist in the resolution of landlord-tenant problems within British Columbia.

We strongly believe the best method of dispute resolution is where the two parties

can simply agree on a resolution and work out their own problems, but there

are so many situations and market conditions in which tenants do not have adequate

bargaining power to reach a satisfactory resolution of a dispute on their own.

Thus it falls upon the people working in the rentalsman's office to assist.

The

rental housing market in our province has changed significantly in the

past number of months. Our province, owing to its excellent economic

growth relative to other provinces and owing to the appealing weather

in the metropolitan areas, has attracted large numbers of people from

other provinces. We have the distinction of perhaps the largest

in-migration numbers in Canada. Concurrent with this influx of people,

the federal government has seen fit to discontinue a number of tax

incentives for rental housing projects, and mortgage rates, as we all

know, have risen to record highs. This has left our province in the

position of experiencing increased demand for rental accommodation and

relatively decreasing supply. The lack of action by the federal

government has resulted in its being unaffordable, in most instances,

to construct rental housing to meet the demands in the marketplace.

you are aware, Mr. Speaker, we now have one of the lowest vacancy rates

in history. As a direct result, many problems between landlords and

tenants have increased. Landlords are frustrated with the regulations

and red tape that prevent them from making what they consider a

reasonable return. Often tenants would rather fight than move, for a

very good reason: there is very little, if any, opportunity to

relocate. Some of the tenants without rent increase protection are

experiencing serious hardships, and there have been some examples of

this which have caused the ministry to respond by way of legislation

change.

This environment has resulted in dramatic increases

in workload for the office of the rentalsman. In Vancouver the workload

has more than doubled in the past year. The rentalsman and his staff

have been working very hard in attempting to cope with the workload,

but it has increased significantly. The rentalsman has implemented

administrative improvements that have resulted in an overall office

productivity improvement of approximately 80 percent, but in spite of

this the effectiveness of the rentalsman's office is to be increased,

both in technical matters and by eliminating a great deal of

unnecessary procedures and certainly unproductive procedures.

The

first major change contained in this legislation is a retroactive

extension of rent review. The government firmly believes that a free

market ultimately functions best, and while we wish to move towards a

market in which rent controls would be redundant, we recognize that at

this time such controls are required in reflecting the realities of

today's market. Unfortunately some owners — mainly large, corporate

owners — appear to have acted very aggressively in today's market, and

would appear to have taken advantage of the rental shortages. That

action leaves the government with no alternative but to provide some

protection for those people who are in the unfortunate position of

receiving notices of extraordinarily high increase and yet are with

very little protection. Most problems are occurring in buildings which

were on the market after January 1, 1974. Therefore we propose to

provide individual appeals to any tenant in these buildings who

received an excessive rent increase on or after January 1, 1980.

That particular amendment is not intended as an extension of rent control, but rather as an extension of rent review.

[ Page 2785 ]

The

rentalsman will recognize that rent adjustments are required in the

early years of a building's life. Excessive rent increases probably

will be reduced, such as where the rent clearly exceeds the market rent

or an economic eviction is attempted. I say "probably will be reduced"

because such decisions are the role of the Rent Review Commission.

Certainly it is the intent of the legislation to provide him with those

tools.

The second major amendment is the extension of the

protection of the Residential Tenancy Act to occupants in hotels,

motels and lodging houses where the occupant has lived or intends to

live in the room either for a two-month period or on a permanent basis.

These residents will be automatically covered by the act. Again, the

shortages of rental housing have caused hardships for many of these

people. Residents will be able to enforce maintenance, health and

safety standards without fear of eviction.

It is a

particularly difficult area to administer because of the traditions of

this type of accommodation and, very often, the nature of the people

who have such accommodation, many of whom are transients. Sometimes it

is very difficult to accommo date the needs of such people in our

society, but every attempt is being made within this new amendment.

Excessive rent increases in such circumstances will be reviewable. We

also recognize that we are changing some of the rules on the operators

of these buildings, and therefore have included provisions by which

security deposits can be collected, and most existing house rules, such

as restriction of problem guests by desk clerks, can be enforced. Both

residents and operators will obtain increased security under the

proposed amendments.

The third major change is to give the

rentalsman the ability to function similarly to a small claims court.

Both landlords and tenants have complained that after the rentalsman

has investigated a problem and reviewed all the evidence, he does not

have the authority to resolve a claim by a tenant other than about

excessive rent increases, nor can he resolve a claim by a landlord for

more than the amount of a security deposit. Both parties also have

complained about cumbersome procedures. Therefore we are proposing that

either landlords or tenants, during or within six months after

termination of a tenancy, may file a claim with the rentalsman for any

amount that could be heard by a small claims court — currently this is

$2,000. The party making a claim for other than the security deposit

will have the option of filing with either the rentalsman's office or

the small claims court. To discourage frivolous disputes that waste

public funds by way of public time, there will be a $10 filing fee, as

with the small claims court. Twenty-five percent of the claims

currently reviewed by the rentalsman's office are for less than $25. A

successful claimant will have the fee returned at the expense of the

respondent. There will be no prescribed forms, and landlords and

tenants will be encouraged to resolve matters on their own. Tenants

will have some bargaining power if a landlord unlawfully retains a

security deposit and a tenant subsequently files a claim. The landlord

must respond, and would also be liable for the additional cost. We

expect that both landlords and tenants will view this change as a

much-needed improvement.

We have also made changes to

reflect the current rate of inflation and current interest rates. While

I appreciate that these changes could be made at a time when the

Legislature is not in session, I believe these changes are a part of

the overall package of proposed improvements. These changes reflect the

country's real economy. We intend to relate the annual rent increase

limit to the national rate of inflation. As you know, Mr. Speaker, it

is a matter of regulation, and should, I think, reflect the actual

costs incurred. In the past average rents have been increasing at less

than the rate of inflation and less than the rate of wage increases.

This has caused a great deal of frustration and difficulty for owners

in meeting cost increases that had artificially made renting less

expensive in real terms — that is, purchasing power had increased

faster than rents, which has resulted in an increased consumption per

person of rental housing. It seems fair that rents be allowed to rise

consistent with other costs.

We've increased the incentive

for landlords to make improvements to rental property by increasing the

additional rent increase for renovations from 12 percent of the cost of

the improvements to 18 percent of the cost of the improvements. Again,

that was to reflect the rising interest rates and general rising

inflationary effect on improvements. It's not feasible for a landlord

to finance a major improvement project with a rent increase that would

not even pay the interest on such costs.

Consistent with

reflecting the current economy, the interest paid to a tenant on a

security deposit was increased as well from 8 percent to 12 percent.

Again, that's in response to the rates.

If we're to expect

investors to build and meet our future housing requirements, we must

have regulations that are acceptable to a reasonable person. Therefore

in addition to increasing the acceptability of the rent control

legislation, we've attempted to remove many of the technical and

bureaucratic restrictions facing owners of rental property.

None

of the changes have taken away the rights of a responsible tenant.

Present tenants are not adversely affected by procedural

simplifications, and future tenants will benefit from any moves that

result in an improved environment in which rental housing can be

constructed.

We're also proposing numerous

miscellaneous amend ments to rectify injustices against tenants or

landlords. Major simplification in amendments and in equity adjustment

amendments include: merging the functions of the rentals man and the

Rent Review Commission to improve the service to the public; increasing

the flexibility, form and method of service of notices; the ability to

correct technical errors in filling out forms or notices to avoid

technical disqualifications; adding the ability for the rentalsman to

not evict tenants who commit but quickly repair or rectify damage or

breach the tenancy agreement; increasing the flexibility with respect

to the date by which landlords must serve rent arrears notices; waiving

the notice requirements for rent increase upon change of tenancy in a

decontrolled unit; making it an offence for mobile-home parks to

unreasonably restrict tenants from selling their mobile homes within

the park; adding provisions to permit rent increases for mortgage re

financing during the month the refinancing occurs; adding provisions by

which the rentalsman can reimburse a tenant directly for making repairs

that were the responsibility of the landlord; allowing owners to

provide for liquidated damage claims when tenants move earlier than the

date agreed upon; providing landlords with the option of dealing with

abandoned goods, according to either the act or common law; allowing a

new purchaser of a unit to coincide the possession date with the

termination of the tenancy; reducing the time delays before giving

notices for redevelopment or conversion of properties; allowing for

earlier replacement of caretakers

[ Page 2786 ]

where

employment is discontinued; increasing the rentalsman's ability to

permit landlords entry into suites of irresponsible tenants; providing

additional funds to the rentalsman to improve the level of service

during a period of rental shortage.

There are also numerous

other amendments of a housekeeping nature. We recognize that we can't

possibly please everyone at all times in this rental market. I

appreciate that it's not within the scope of these amendments to

resolve either housing production problems or specific income problems.

However, I believe the combined effect of these changes will both

eliminate the abuse being experienced by unprotected tenants and

improve the investment climate for new rental housing.

When

the bill was first introduced in the House, it was reported that this

was a response to resolve the rental housing problem in B.C. I would

like to advise the House that it was never claimed by my ministry that

indeed this would resolve the rental housing problem. The actions of

governments at various levels will be required if we are to seriously

attempt to resolve the housing problem, particularly in the rental

field.

The amendments to this bill address the real

difficulties which have been experienced. They have been identified by

those two main groups who are affected, the landlords and the tenants.

It is our belief that the amendments which we place before you will go

a long way to resolving some of the very real difficulties experienced

in this segment of the industry.

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.

MR. LEVI:

Just off the top I will inform the minister we will be supporting the

bill on second reading, but we have a number of amendments that we are

going to offer later on.

There was one omission the minister

made. I would have preferred to have heard him discuss to some extent a

little bit of the philosophy of the government in respect to rent

controls in general. We know that over the years the policy of the

government has shifted from one of categorical support of controls,

which was indicated during the 1975 election, and then some gradual

removal of controls in 1978. We are looking to see where the government

is specifically going in terms of rent controls.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There

is a great debate going on in the community in respect to rents — the

problems of people on fixed incomes. And we also have, in that debate,

what I feel are rather astounding remarks being made by so-called

responsible people. I'd like to read an editorial that was in the Colonist on May 6, 1980, and then make some comments about it. The editorial is headed: "Rent Controls and Shortages."

God, the Liberals are the only ones in the House. One, two, three,

four, five, six. They're all Liberals, and one Socred. My God!

Anyway, to go to the editorial.... I'm sorry, eight! My God, I missed the Speaker.

HON. MR. GARDOM: He wants equal time.

MR. LEVI: He wants equal time? Okay.

Let me just read part of the editorial, and then I'd like to make some comments about it.

"There is a critical shortage of rental housing in both Victoria and Vancouver — and few new units being built.

"Against

this background, consumer affairs minister Jim Nielsen said last week

that while he favours the elimination of rent controls, that can only

be achieved in a competitive housing market."

But it is the next paragraph that I want to make some comments about:

"Dr.

Walter Block, senior economist with the Fraser Institute, said last

month that rent controls are largely responsible for the shortage of

rental housing. "

Now that represents a very significant

opinion by some people — most of whom, I think, dwell about 14 blocks

to the right of Genghis Khan. This is the argument that was offered as

long ago as 1973, when rent controls came in, that somehow rent

controls would act as a disincentive to those people who invested in

housing. They do now, although they didn't at that time, talk about the

fact that there were a number of incentives from the federal government

in terms of the tax system — capital cost allowance, and the

introduction of MURB — and that people were given the incentive to

build. I would like Dr. Block to be able to demonstrate that somehow

rent controls have been responsible for the shortage of housing. I

would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the reason there is such a shortage of

housing is that it is simply not profitable for people who normally

build houses to build them. Then they have to examine very closely the

nature of the economy and the fiscal policies that exist in this

province that create mortgage rates which make it impossible for people

to get into business. But to suggest, as Dr. Block suggests, that what

we should do is remove rent controls....

Now the minister

hasn't done that. He's tinkered a bit with the system, and brought in

some very interesting amendments. Particularly the one relating to the

small claims court is a very interesting move on his part; the

rentalsman is going to have some opportunity to make some decisions

about those items up to $2,000, and save the taxpayer an enormous

amount of money — something that the former Attorney-General should

have done a long time ago, but didn't. He didn't understand that kind

of thing.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Are you talking about the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald)?

MR. LEVI: No, no, I'm talking about that fellow.

respect to what would happen if there were no rent controls, it is

probably one of the most horrifying things that one has to look at. If

you completely removed rent controls, what would happen to tenants? I'm

told that as a result of the increase from 7 percent to 10 percent —

that is 3 percentage points, about a 40 percent increase in the

allowable increase in rent — some $30 million will be transferred from

the tenants' pockets to the landlords' pockets. Now if you were to

remove all of the controls that exist, then no doubt we would be

looking at a transfer of several hundreds of millions of dollars.

The

difficulty in dealing with a bill like this, Mr. Speaker, is that it

should really be accompanied — either by the minister who introduced

the bill, or by the government as a general matter of policy — with

something on how they are

[ Page 2787 ]

going

to do something about the very serious problem of housing shortages. If

you are going to do something in terms of creating an increase in

rents.... Some people say it's very high, some people say it's not; it

depends on which income bracket you're in. I don't think there is any

doubt that in our province about 30 percent of the people who rent

residences are on some kind of relatively fixed income or low income —

people who are not covered by union contracts, people who are on

pension, people who are on welfare. Of course, when you go from 7

percent to 10 percent, that's a very significant amount of money for

them. People in those brackets usually have no discretionary funding at

all. They have to pay their rent, their food and there's very little

left over.

I would suggest that the majority of people....

I'm talking now outside of public housing. There's been virtually a

complete stop over the last three or four years in the construction of

public housing. Outside of that, most people are spending between 25

percent and 35 percent of their income on rent. The people who are

going to be subject to that increase are going to feel the pinch. The

only way that you can, in the long run, make it easier is by having in

complement with this bill a general program by the government as to

what it's going to do to improve the housing situation.

I'd

like to pay a compliment to the rentalsman, Mr. Patterson. I've found

him to be a very open and forthright man who has made a number of

comments over the past several months, particularly in relation to the

landlords that have decided that gouging is in their best interest. I'd

like to remind the House that back in 1972 when we first discussed the

possibility of bringing in rent controls, it was as a result of a large

number of complaints that we got from people — particularly old people

— after we introduced what was then the Mincome program. The extra

money they got was being spent on increased rents. That was one of the

things that was forcing us into the situation of rent control.

now have a situation, and I think perhaps that's one of the

shortcomings of the bill, where we are looking at very excessive rent

gouging, particularly in the category of housing that was built after

January 1, 1974, and is not covered by rent control, but will, under

this bill, be covered in terms of the people being able to go and have

discussions about the rents. It would seem to me that it would have

been reasonable to put this segment of housing under some form of rent

control. After all, of that amount of housing, the majority of it — I

understand some 35,000 units — has been in the marketplace for five or

six years and has been able to find some kind of rental level. Mind

you, the top has gone up over the last several months and will probably

continue to go up.

That particular segment, the area that is

not controlled by rent control at all, is probably the one we should

look at if we want to think about what horrors would be put on the

public if we were to take off rent controls completely. All MLAs — I'm

sure on both sides of the House — have had scores of letters from

people who have been subjected to increases in rent anywhere from $25

to $250 more than they were paying at the time when they got their

notices. That's in an area that was not controlled at all.

It's

generally accepted that you can't continue to control rents and somehow

make it easier for landlords to get a better return on their money.

Nobody disputes the fact that they have to have that if they're going

to continue in business. But that is not, in any way, going to offer an

incentive because of what's in the rent control legislation — that

somehow the housing market is going to boom because people will say:

"Well, they're not going to put too much to us in terms of the

legislation." What there needs to be from the government is a very

specific program on how they're going to discourage the idea of having

to constantly worry about rent controls and look into the business of

creating some more housing.

Mr. Patterson, the rentalsman,

made a suggestion. He said the government should provide subsidies of

$90 million a year for the next eight years to encourage construction

of rental units. All right, what was he talking about? Presumably he

was talking about the federal or provincial governments putting a

program into place. If you're dealing with a capital cost allowance,

then presumably that $90 million would be shared with the federal

government. There would be a provision of some 10,000 units. It's

really only by that very massive infusion of money into the market,

which has to be a government program.... There is no program coming

from the federal government; it has to come from the provincial

government.

Without commenting on the legislation that we've

dealt with, Mr. Speaker, we did indicate earlier that if there are

surpluses in the government it would do the government well to come in

with surpluses relating.... One suggestion was made that we spend $160

million on housing for seniors instead of the $1 million that was

looked at. If there is in fact a surplus, then there should be, as Mr.

Patterson suggests, a massive infusion of money in terms of subsidies.

Or as my colleague for Victoria said last week, whether it's a subsidy

or it's welfare, it's public money going to do some kind of good. After

all, welfare payments go directly into the economy; they don't go into

the bank. In terms of the suggestion that there be subsidies, fine.

There was a suggestion on his part that there be this kind of subsidy

to start generating the kind of construction that needs to be

generated. And everybody knows there are spinoffs. They know the jobs

it would create in the construction industry and what a boon it would

be in terms of the forest industry.

We saw at the beginning

of the year the beginning of a program and the beginning of the

government putting its foot as a public body into the private sector to

do something about creating incentives in respect to mortgages —

something that they long fought against and didn't want to do. They did

not in any way want to interfere with the free market system. Because

their solution was then — and I think is still now — very much the

solution that Dr. Block has, to just let the market have its forces

operating and everything will be okay. Of course he does not say

"except for those people who simply aren't going to be able to afford

the rents in the places where they're living." So there should be a

companion bill or policy here, not just the bill that deals with some

amendments. And some are good amendments; some of them do remove some

of that horrendous bureaucracy. It's taken four or five years of

operation of the rentalsman's office to reach the stage that it's come

to in terms of its ability to adjudicate. And that's what it's doing,

in fact. It's making these adjudications on the kinds of disputes which

all of us know about, particularly MLAs, because we are constantly

getting complaints from our constituents about what goes on with these

kinds of complaints. Now it's become a very essential part of the

operation of government and of the operation in terms of making

communities function, because you have a rentalsman's office in these

disputes. It can be resolved and this bill seeks to make the thing

easier as well.

[ Page 2788 ]

Again,

I return to Mr. Patterson's proposal, because you can't talk about this

bill without talking about the other solutions that have to go toward

improving the housing situation. The minister did say that this bill in

no way was going to make it easier for the creation of housing

construction, and that's quite true. But the idea of the subsidies in

order to create the spinoff in terms of employment, in terms of what

goes on in the forest industry, and all of the spinoff that goes into

secondary industry for all the supplies that are necessary, can only

improve the economy. The government is not noted for that involvement,

except when it started in January to look at the mortgage market and it

created a program of some $200 million, which is a very valuable

contribution to the economy.

But despite all of this, Mr.

Speaker, we still have the lowest vacancy rate in Canada, and this just

didn't creep up on us. We went through this experience eight or nine

years ago when we had a low vacancy rate — at that time because the

government had removed the capital cost allowance. But the government

of the day, the NDP government, had to get into the business of

building houses. Somebody had to do it. Somebody had to create that

kind of situation. There were incentives there, because I can recall at

the end of 1975-76 we still had 3,500 or almost 4,000 condominiums that

were not rented; that's not the situation now. We will fall 8,000 units

short this year at least, and if, as the minister suggests, because of

our wonderful weather and nice climate the people will continue to come

to this province, it's going to be even more difficult. There has to be

a plan.

It's very nice for us to be able to say that people

come to this province because it's so lovely to live in, but every

person that comes here has the potential to displace some person or

family here, in terms of their ability to pay a higher rent than the

family that lives here already and simply can't tolerate the higher

rent. That becomes a difficult situation. The only solution to that is

that there's got to be a creation of a larger housing construction

industry. It's not happening, because the free market forces are not

working, contrary to what Dr. Block says. The kinds of things that he

talks about would create absolute chaos if we were to allow that kind

of removal. The government hasn't done that, because it's got its ear

to the ground listening and it knows that the whole issue of landlords

and tenants and housing is a very sensitive one. People are becoming

more outspoken about it now than they've ever been, because there are

zero vacancy rates. There is nowhere to go; you are locked in. You will

use money which you've classified as "discretionary money" to pay even

bigger rents, because that's what's happening.

There are

some improvements in the bill, I think, in respect to mobile homes.

That is a segment of our population that has often been overlooked, and

it's an important one. The move in terms of those that live in hotels —

that's always a tough one, but they've attempted to come to grips with

it. It's to their credit that they've done that, and we hope that it

will work. I can recall that at one time, four or five years ago, we as

a government thought that we could get that kind of responsibility

without really legislating, by saying to people, as I recall saying to

a group of hotel people in Vancouver: "You're in receipt of $300,000 a

month in rent as a result of people on Mincome and people on welfare

who live in your hotels and constitute some of the bread and butter of

your hotels. Be more reasonable with these people. But it didn't

happen. They've now found some remedy to this in terms of the amendment

in the bill — something worthwhile.

Then we look at some of

the deficiencies. I think I've covered particularly the one which

relates to that segment of housing that is decontrolled: housing built

after January 1, 1974. This is really creating incredible hardships for

a lot of people. When you're suddenly faced with up to 50 percent

increases — and that does happen — then you begin to wonder whether

it's not time to find a mechanism where you've got to put this in some

kind of control situation.

The minister has suggested that

now they'll be brought into the whole business of discussion about

whether the rent is adequate enough or not. Okay, we'll see what

happens. We wish the rentalsman well and we hope that he'll have

sufficient staff in order to do this, because it's an added burden.

It's going to become something that he's going to have to deal with in

a much bigger way.

Recently we had a case of a very large

gouging corporation — I think that's all we could call them — who were

taken to court. They were convicted, but in my opinion if you want to

make the salutary example, which is always necessary, I think, in these

kinds of cases, I would have looked to have seen a much more

substantial fine than the one that was brought down. After all, they

started out with more than 119 charges, but they dropped 119 charges.

It would have served — and I hope it is serving — as a warning to

people who are going to go out and gouge that out there is the

rentalsman, who has the powers to seize their books and look at what

they're doing, and if they are doing something wrong, as this

corporation did, take them to court, and if they're convicted, see that

they're punished.

Frankly, I don't find that fining somebody

$2,000 in respect to an enormous kind of gouging and ripoff that took

place in those particular cases was an adequate kind of sentence. I

would hope that the Crown will review that, if it's possible, and

appeal it. Nevertheless, I suppose it's a warning to other people. Some

people have suggested to me that although the fine wasn't very high,

the publicity probably has cost them a lot of money. But it was a good

effort on the part of the rentalsman in respect to taking on one of

these gougers. That's good. They got them into court and the facts came

out. There are others out there that haven't been caught yet. The

tragedy in our society is, I suppose, that even some of the big people

who operate in the market system somehow don't seem to respond to the

necessity that corporations should have social responsibility, and even

more social responsibility when times are particularly tough. I have in

mind the housing market, when people will take the opportunity to gouge

every cent they can from people when they know that people can't go

anywhere. So that example of how they can be protected, in terms of the

rentalsman's office, was a very worthwhile exercise in something that

presumably will have to continue if we're going to stop these people

who continue to do this.

From time to time in this House we

often say that we've got to have less regulation and less laws

controlling our society, but when the economic times are very tough and

we see the classical example of irresponsible people.... When the

business community is doing what they do.... Well, they were brought to

the bar, charged and convicted, and I hope that that will have some

impact on the other people who are thinking of doing it. Of course,

we're suggesting that the obvious way to avoid that particular problem

is to look at bringing in some kind of rent control in that area. It's

very important.

Mr. Speaker, the bill in itself does not represent any

[ Page 2789 ]

departure

by the government in terms of where it stands on the issue of rent

controls. I know that two years ago, when it was amended, the minister

of the day — the predecessor to the present minister — indicated that

the housing market was looking better. In fact, we even heard from, the

present Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), when he was the Minister

of Municipal Affairs and was responsible for the housing corporation,

that things were going so well that they wouldn't even need the housing

corporation any more. Well, they were told then. They didn't produce

the information for us. We asked at that time: "You're amending the act

and you're decontrolling certain aspects of the housing market. On what

do you base this?" Well, there was nothing forthcoming in terms of

that. We don't need too many reports today to know. Everybody knows

somebody who is looking for accommodation. We don't need a great study.

But in those days, two years ago, there was a great deal of optimism

from the government that there would be no problem about housing. The

situation hadn't changed very much over the past two years. They failed

to do anything about improving the housing market. Now we are brought

to the situation where we are simply looking at the protection of

tenants.

There will be some disagreements and we will offer

some amendments with respect to some of the small items that are in the

bill. There are some tenants who are not going to be happy with the

bill as it is. The people who are not going to be happy are obviously

the people on fixed incomes; the 40 percent increase in their rent is a

tough proposition for them. But I suppose, in looking at the whole

spectrum of people who rent, on balance there are some worthwhile

features in the bill. We would hope to make our contribution by adding

some amendments to round out the bill.

Before closing I just

want to enlarge a little bit. I am sure the minister is aware of Mr.

Patterson's remarks. When he outlined his program, when he talked about

the need for the government to provide a subsidy, he really outlined a

three point program to eliminate rent control. He was looking down the

road at when we would not need to have legislation like we have today.

The three-point program really called for production of a subsidy of

$200 a month for each new rental unit, declining by $25 a month each

year and to be written off over eight years. That is a significant

investment in the future, but all of it will come back into the

economy. He added that rents would be allowed to increase with the rate

of inflation, and that subsidies for pensioners and other lowincome

renters would be reviewed. A point the minister made was that the rent

increase from 7 percent to 10 percent is not even in keeping with

inflation, which is a factor which obviously is something that has to

be considered.

He also talks about developers not profitably

constructing new rental units unless revenue exceeds $600 a month.

Without production subsidies, rent required for new apartments would be

between $600 and $800 a month. That is a pretty horrendous thing to

envision — $600 to $800 per month, when the take-home pay of most

people in this province is anywhere from $900 to about $1,300 per

month. With $600 to $800 per month in rent, we could see what kind of

problem we would soon be having. Food prices are not any better.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, that we said long ago in this country that if

you pay more than 70 percent of your income on housing and food you are

living on the poverty line. With those kinds of rents envisioned, that

is where a significant number of our people would be. That is something

we have to think about and avoid, and not simply sit by and somehow

hope that only the federal government is going to bail us out. We've

heard from the government that they have large surpluses, which could

very adequately be put into the development of a large housing creation

so that we could get away from the Pharaoh-like dreams of the

government — a tunnel that runs across to the Island and a large B.C.

Place, which really do not make the contribution that housing makes to

our society.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI:

Exactly, Mr. Member. My colleague said it — tunnel vision. They want a

tunnel. That is what they are in favour of. What we want is to take

some of the surplus....

The greatest tragedy in this

province will be at the end of this fiscal year when that government

over there is going to have a billion dollars in the bank. It will be a

terrible tragedy for all the people, particularly the young people who

are looking for housing. This government constantly looks to the

federal government to bail them out. We have a number of western

separatists over there and they are looking to the federal government

to bail them out.

MR. MACDONALD: When are you going to put a leash on Dr. Science?

MR. LEVI: Well, we'd have to put something around his ears first.

Just

in closing, we will be offering some amendments to the bill. We will

also continue to talk about the complementary program that should go

with the bill, and that is a program of the government being involved

in doing what it has to do in terms of the development of more housing.

Mr.

Patterson — who probably knows more about the issue of rent control and

the need for the provision of housing than anybody in the province,

because this is where he is every day, meeting the tenants and owners,

and he is aware of what goes on — tells us that we have to have a

minimum of 8,000 new units in this province or we'll be in very serious

trouble, That is somebody who has spent more than five years actively

in the field, knowing exactly what goes on. He has to be listened to.

What he said — as I understand conversations I've had with him and with

other people — is that he well understands what's going on. His

indications are that the infusion of government subsidy is essential,

and it has to be part and parcel of the legislation that we are dealing

with today.

MR. GABELMANN: I have a few very brief

comments on Bill 21 this afternoon. The first thing I would like to say

is that I think it is time that amendments were brought into the

legislation at hand. Most of the amendments are clearly needed. I

suspect they are on the basis of recommendations from the rentalsman

and, as I say, I welcome most of those amendments. It's what the bill

doesn't do that I'm more concerned about. It's what the government

doesn't do that I am particularly concerned about.

Let me

first say that I have been impressed by the office of the rentalsman,

both by the way in which the office has been run under its new

administration and by the rentalsman himself — in terms of his public

statements. I think the appointment was a good one, and I think that

the work he has done has been good. I just want to get that on the

record.

[ Page 2790 ]

There

have been discussions in the press and in the Legislature about the

theory of rent control — whether or not there should be any — and I'm

sure the government would very much like to get out of the business of

rent control. I think some of us on this side would say: "Sure, let's

get out of it if the free enterprise system can serve the housing

market properly." But it hasn't for many years; it hasn't in most

cities in North America for many decades. It certainly does not serve

housing in this province at this time under any circumstances. Excess

capital that is available for housing has not gone, does not go and is

not likely in the future to go into housing. Excess capital goes

elsewhere. If that investment capital were going into housing in a

proper proportion, then I think we could seriously consider the

abandonment of rent controls. But it doesn't, and we can't. Although

it's not directly in the legislation, it flows from the legislation

when you have a 7 or a 10 percent rent increase.

I believe —

and I argued this some years ago when the first bill was in front of

the House — that rent increases should have to be justified in all

cases. A blanket 10 percent rent increase means, in fact, that rents go

up 10 percent. In many cases the original financing for the building

involved has been repaid, and the building is continually remortgaged

to provide capital for the owners. Tenants are providing that capital

at rates that are not required to meet expenses to maintain the

building — taxes and heat, and all the things that go into maintaining

a building. Those massive 10 percent increases are not needed to meet

those increased costs. That money goes into the pockets of the owners

so they can reinvest — not in housing, but in other areas that might

give them a greater return on their investment these days.

Maybe

we should say that if landlords are allowed to increase their rents,

even though their initial capital has been repaid, that excess capital

that is created must be ploughed back into housing and cannot be

allowed to go into other projects. Then I think there might be some

justification for across-the-board allowable rental increases. But

under present circumstances, that money is not going back into housing.

It is not justifiable on any economic or moral grounds to allow 10

percent rent increases in buildings that have already paid for

themselves — sometimes many times over.

I want to say one

other thing, Mr. Speaker. In my constituency, most of the communities

have built rental accommodation since 1974. As a result of that, there

is very little rent control in communities in my riding. Most of the

buildings are new, most of them are outside controls, and because the

housing market is so tight, the rents can be set at an astronomically

high level in the first place — far higher than an amount needed to

recoup the investment. On top of that, we are now allowing unlimited

rent increases — except that this bill proposes that those increases

can be reviewed by the Rent Review Commission should it come to their

attention. That's not good enough. Those rent controls should exist on

those properties, and the justification should be made by the owners at

the time they wish to (

a) set their rent, and (

b) raise their rent.

Those are the only points I would like to make.

MR. BARBER:

This bill has a number of very good features. This bill proposes to do

a number of things to allow greater authority to the rentalsman, in

order that he may settle disputes and thereby diminish the necessity

for the continuing awkwardness, shall we say, between landlords and

tenants, which often proceeds far too long with far more complexity

than it should, and which could be cut short were the rentalsman

initially understood to have the necessary and greater authority in

order to deal with those problems.

I congratulate the

government on a number of sections in this bill. The feature which

allows persons in hotels which are basically residential apartments,

after a period of, I gather, 60 days, to become entitled to many of the

protections and privileges of the Landlord and Tenant Act, is also

welcome, certainly overdue and something which the official opposition

is pleased to support.

The office of the rentalsman itself

has clearly had a major hand in determining these amendments. I'd like

to say — and join with my colleague in doing so, and with other

colleagues who will say the same in a few moments' time — that we think

the staff and the leadership of the office of the rentalsman is really

just excellent. The only problem they have is that there are not enough

of them. The minister is well aware, and I'm sure the Speaker is aware,

that the burden of inquiries and the caseload of problems and matters

to be handled in the office of the rentalsman is simply too great for

the number of staff they have.

As the Speaker will know, my

colleague from Victoria and I run a community office downtown. We see

about 300 people a month. Many of those people come to us with

landlord-and-tenant disputes. Some of those persons would have been

able to have had those disputes resolved more directly and more

efficaciously had they been able to get through to the rentalsman in

the first place. But the problem is that the phone is always busy; the

lineups are too long; the delays are too great. It is not because of

inefficiency in the office; to the contrary, it is because of the

overload on office facilities and office staff.

So while we

congratulate the government for this bill and many sections of it, and

while we acknowledge the excellent service provided by the rentalsman

and his staff, we urge the government when granting these new powers to

the rentalsman himself to grant him as well a sufficient level of

staffing that the commendable objectives of this amending bill may be

realized. If in fact additional staff are not provided, regardless of

the good intentions of this act it will be impossible to meet them. Why

is that? It's because the phone will always be busy and the lineups

always too long and the letters not answered for 64 days — as in one

spectacular case that I had come to my attention recently.

Nonetheless,

this is a bill which in principle I find quite easy to support, except

in one particular feature, and I'll refer to that in a moment. I

believe now and I have believed for a long time that credit should be

given where it's due. Credit is due the minister who brings this bill

forward; credit is due the rentalsman, Mr. Patterson; credit is due to

the government side for many of the commendable features of it.

There

is one issue, though, in which I think legitimate philosophic debate

should take place. It was raised as well by my colleague for North

Island (Mr. Gabelmann); it's certainly implicit in this bill; it's

something that, regardless of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair),

should be debated on the floor. It is the issue of rent controls and

their appropriateness; it is the issue of rent controls and their

suitability; it is the issue of rent controls and whether or not

they're here to stay.

I for one strongly believe that rent

controls are only an instrument of social policy. They're not an

imbedded feature of legislation — or should not be. They're not an

imbedded feature of the public interest — or should not be. Rent

[ Page 2791 ]

controls

are only from time to time an apparently necessary instrument to deal

with a problem that has been created for reasons about which the

Legislature often has little or nothing to say. I myself hope that rent

controls will not be needed and should not be required as a permanent

feature of the economic landscape of British Columbia. They are a

significant intrusion in the marketplace. They tend to dislocate

important aspects of the marketplace in regard to the ability of

corporate enterprise to provide housing. They also raise questions

about the requirement thereafter of public enterprise to meet the need

for housing. I certainly agree that if corporate enterprise cannot meet

the requirement, then public enterprise has to step in.

One

way or the other, the people of British Columbia have a right to be

housed decently and affordably. One way or another, the people of this

province have a right to call on this government to provide either such

conditions for corporate enterprise or such programs of public

enterprise that good and affordable housing is made available.

Unfortunately that's not the situation that prevails today. Rather, as

the minister said in his introductory remarks, we are faced with

virtually a zero vacancy rate in rental accommodation in the two

largest metropolitan areas of this province. Even in the worst days of

the mid-seventies, when there was a tremendous economic boom in this

province and a tremendous in-migration of citizens, and when there was,

to say the least, a tremendously poor response from the national

government in regard to what tax conditions should prevail so as to

encourage housing.... Even in those dark days we were not faced with a

crisis the level of which we have now reached.

The problem

is that the government has chosen a narrow remedy which, in my opinion

anyway, does not deal maturely with the whole of the issue. That issue,

of course, is an economic one. How is corporate enterprise encouraged

to provide housing? How is it made unnecessary to engage in rent

controls? How is it made not a prerequisite of public policy to

introduce rent controls in order to protect tenants? Otherwise, of

course, the landlords have the upper hand.

Our party stands

for equity, fairness, and a balance of responsibility and obligation

between landlord and tenant. That is why we introduced the original

Landlord and Tenant Act. It was a significant improvement over previous

legislation. That is why this government has introduced this bill

today, which is, I think, an improvement over current legislation. But

neither act and neither statute in fact deals with the material

economic questions that any government — Social Credit or New

Democratic — has to face.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

personally have no philosophic commitment to rent controls as a

permanent feature of the marketplace. They are only, at best, a

temporary instrument of public policy which seeks to protect the

interests of tenants who otherwise would be horrendously exploited by a

few landlords who, in a time of housing shortage, will rip-off tenants

in a totally unjustifiable way.

Prior to the introduction of

rent controls senior citizens in my riding were the victims of

unscrupulous landlords who proposed, when they knew there was a

virtually zero vacancy rate, to increase the rent by anywhere from 20

to 40 and in one case 46 percent. A few unscrupulous landlords gave the

whole lot of them a bad name. That's not fair, because a few tenants

can give all the tenants a bad name as well. Therefore it is necessary

to introduce features and fairness of law. That is why the Landlord and

Tenant Act, that is why the rentalsman — and that is why, by the way,

that worked. By and large most landlords and most tenants understood

the necessity of public policy that saw the introduction of a

rentalsman and rent controls at the time.

Rent controls

are relatively easy to introduce. They are terribly difficult to get

rid of. Once they have entered the marketplace, it is extremely

difficult to withdraw them. Therefore it is necessary, I think, for a

government to produce not simply

an act like this today, which has many

commendable features, but as well, as part and parcel of it, a larger

social and economic strategy which reflects in a competent way on the

need of corporate enterprise to have created the conditions that allow

it to do business, and on the needs of tenants to find affordable and

decent housing wherever they choose to live in the province of British

Columbia. It is a problem of social and economic strategy. It is not

just a problem of how you amend the Residential Tenancy Act in order to

make things a little less miserable for people caught up in a time of

zero rental accommodation.

This government, I think, made a

strategic error two years ago when it decided to shut down the Housing

Corporation of British Columbia. We are now, to the best of my

knowledge, the only jurisdiction in Canada that does not have a social

housing corporation. That being the case, as a reflection of this

government's right-wing ideology, you have to ask what other steps they

are then prepared to take in order to encourage corporate enterprise to

build housing. You see, Mr. Speaker, they refuse to do it themselves.

That is fair enough. If they were elected on a platform that says, "We

will abandon social housing and we will rely on the private sector,"

that is fair by me if the private sector holds up its end of the

bargain. But that hasn't happened either, so the public has lost both

ways. First of all, we lost the Housing Corporation of British

Columbia; secondly, we lost the private sector; thirdly, tenants are in

trouble. When that prevails and when that case is maintained, as

indisputably it is, then you have to examine the wisdom of

an act like

this in one special aspect.

Let me restate. If the

government is unprepared and unwilling to spend social capital to

create housing, and if they prefer instead to rely on private capital,

why then do we find no means, no mechanism and no instrument for the

proper and correct deployment of private capital to meet the

residential and tenant housing needs of the people of British Columbia?

It is hard to tell, because the government hasn't said. It is hard to

know, because they won't say why. Rather, we are simply left with the

situation where there is no significant social capital being spent,

where government abandoned the Housing Corporation of British Columbia

in a supremely foolish move, and where, as well, the private sector has

not responded to the clear need.

Why do they not respond? I

don't want to put words in their mouth, but as best as I can, let me

tell you what they told me. I've met with HUDAC and with the Greater

Victoria Apartment Owners' Association, and as municipal affairs critic

for the official opposition I have received an enormous volume of

correspondence from apartment builders and apartment owners around

British Columbia. As fairly as I can put it, their case is simply this:

"What's in it for us? Why should we build here when we can make more

money by putting our capital in the bank? Why should we build tenant

[ Page 2792 ]

accommodation

when we can make more money buying B.C. Tel shares? Why on earth should

we go to all the trouble, accept all the risk and suffer all the

headaches of being involved as private entrepreneurs in the

construction of housing when there is no financial return?"

Paradoxical

as it may sound coming from a New Democrat, I have a lot of sympathy

with the point of view of any small businessman who says: "I am

prepared to put up 14 units, but I'm not prepared to lose my shirt. I

have a right to a return on my investment." I agree with him. As long

as we rely on the private sector for housing, his argument stands. I

sympathize, I have respect, I honour that argument. Some of these guys

have opened up their books to me as their MLA, and have demonstrated

that they make a return of less than 3 percent on their capital. It is

absurd, therefore, to expect any such person to invest in housing, when

they make less than 3 percent as a return, when they have to endanger

the capital in the first place — because it is, to some extent, risk

capital — when they have to work the crazy hours they work in order to

build anything at all and when, further, they are fully aware — as

should every member of this Legislature be — that simply by walking

down the street to the credit union they could get 12 percent. So why

should they go to all that trouble to get 3 percent when they can walk

to the credit union and get 12 percent? It doesn't make sense for

private business to enter the rental housing market at this time under

the current conditions.

Let me restate, at least on my own

behalf and, I suspect, on behalf of many of my colleagues here and

opposite, that we have tremendous respect for the arguments put forward

by persons in the apartment construction industry, and landlords later

on, who tell us: "Why should we bother building rental accommodation?

It isn't worth it, Mr. MLA. There's no return. I get more letting the

money sit in a bank." Therefore, when debating this bill it's important

as well to examine the social strategy which it represents. When

debating this act it's necessary to inquire into the economic strategy

that has to be developed both through this act and others, which would

allow the broadest public interest to be served. No member opposite and

no member on this side would, I think, disagree with the premise of

such a strategy. That premise is that we want affordable and decent

housing for all the people of British Columbia wherever they choose to

live. It's as simple as that. That's what we want; that's what everyone

wants; that's what a correct economic and social strategy could obtain.

What

we have is a situation very different. What we have is a situation in

which, currently, landlords can hold tenants to ransom, basically

because the tenants have nowhere else to go. It's a closed shop. The

tenants have nowhere else they can rent unless they want to leave town

altogether and live in a tent in Goldstream Park. That's not very

practical; it's not very decent. When, as well, the government

deliberately abandons the only instrument that previously existed for

the major deployment of social capital to build housing — the Housing

Corporation of British Columbia — then what else can you look toward?

Apparently all we can look toward is more of the same.

Let

me refer again to the question of rent controls for a moment before

making a few positive proposals to the government which this act

inspires. Let it never be said that the NDP doesn't have ideas and

doesn't make positive proposals. We have lots of ideas and we put

forward lots of proposals. We'll be making some today. When one looks

at rent controls and when one recognizes that they are only a temporary

instrument of social policy designed to protect the interests of one

sector of our society, then you have to ask the legitimate question:

how shall an increase in controlled rent be justified? Surely you don't

do it simply by guessing. Surely you don't do it simply by making up a

figure. Surely you don't, in such a delicate aspect of public interest,

simply and arbitrarily decree that the rent will go up 40 percent.

[Ms. Sanford in the chair.]

The

problem with rent controls is that if you don't justify rent increases,

they become unfair. In our own opinion, as long as any increase — in

the case of this increase of 40 percent or from 7 percent to 10 percent

— is unjustified by government and landlord alike, then the inevitable

consequence of that is to create further and unnecessary hostility

between landlord and tenant. The consequence of that is to create

further business for the rentalsman. The consequence of that is more

busy signals on the phone and longer lineups at the door. It's a very

vicious circle; it's got to be broken somewhere. How do you break it?

In part you break it by creating the correct attitude and atmosphere

for public confidence.

If it is justifiable to increase the

allowable level of rent increase — from 7 percent to 10 percent — let

those justifications be made public today. Let them be made public

today by the landlords that advise the government. Let them be made

public today by the public servants who advise the government. Let them

be disclosed in their entirety, documented and proven by the minister

today. I make that as an absolutely positive proposal because I charge

the government with this: if you cannot justify a rent increase that

moves the allowable ceiling from 7 percent to 10 percent, you will

create for yourselves tens of thousands of angry tenants who wonder

what the justification is, if any, and who will blame you, as well as

the landlord, for the apparent injustice of the situation. There's no

need to do that.

You may in fact have a case, I don't know.

The government may have a case for raising the ceiling from 7 percent

to 10 percent, but we don't know because the government hasn't said.

They have not tabled the figures. They have not demonstrated in a

documented and scientific way what the justification is. At the moment

it looks simply and needlessly arbitrary. I predict — and any person

can predict it; it's no secret — that if you create an atmosphere in

which the tenants feel they have been arbitrarily and unjustifiably

hurt by an unjustifiable and arbitrary rent increase, you will cause

more problems in the long run for landlords as well as for tenants. Why

is that? It is because landlords will have to deal with more angry

tenants who will proceed more vigorously with more abuses of the

landlord — real or imaginary — that they care to present at the

rentalsman's office. Because tenants, like landlords, are human beings

and if they feel aggrieved, they will find some way to make themselves

feel better. If they feel aggrieved by an arbitrary rent increase that

cannot be justified by any public document, then they'll take it out on

the landlord. Needless to say, they'll also take it out on the

government at the next election, but that's another issue.

I urge the minister today to make public all the figures, all the

documents and all the scientific evidence which persuaded him to

increase the allowable rent ceiling from 7.2 percent to 10 percent. I

make that as an absolutely positive proposal and as a serious

initiative from the official opposi-

[ Page 2793 ]

tion,

and many of my colleagues will continue to make it. We want to know on

what scientific basis this was increased. If it cannot be justified,

scientifically supported, or if there is no evidentiary basis for this

rent increase, then tenants across the province will wonder if it

wasn't simply done as a favour to landlords. If there is no other reply

to be made — and so far none has been heard — then that's the

inevitable suspicion that tenants will have.

Let me repeat:

as long as rent controls are in place, rent increases must be

justified. The claim we make is as simple as that. Justify the

increases on the basis of hard evidence. Justify them and you might

persuade the public. If you fail to do that, you will persuade no one

of the need for such an increase and you will thereby unnecessarily

hurt your own cause, which in the rest of this legislation is pretty

darned good. If you fail to justify a 40 percent rent increase — which

is what the order-in-council allows — then you will diminish the

otherwise beneficial impact of the many admirable sections elsewhere in

this bill. I think it is in the government's own interest and favour to

publish such documents and to make available such scientific evidence

as justifies this rent increase.

There are a few other

proposals that I'd like to put forward. One is that you reconsider and

recreate the Housing Corporation of British Columbia. You know, Mr.

Speaker, just because the NDP created it is no good reason for the

government to reject it. They kept the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia, the Agricultural Land Commission and the Petroleum

Corporation — and they kept the Marguerite for

a while. On other occasions, the government, I think, wisely forgot

some of the foolish things they said when in opposition and, when back

in government, retracted the positions they took about throwing away

all these excellent things the NDP did.

One of the best

things the NDP did was to create for the first time in the history of

British Columbia a department of housing. It was a single department

created with its own minister, and very rapidly, with a very major

budget. It was recognition at that time by a progressive administration

of the need to involve public as well as private capital in the

provision of housing. Two years ago, Mr. Curtis, then the minister

responsible, decided, I think, very naively and with very little

foresight that such an instrument of public policy was no longer

required, Therefore he shut down the Housing Corporation of British

Columbia and proceeded to sell off its assets.

I urge the

government to reconsider. I particularly urge this minister to take up

the case in cabinet, on behalf of landlords and tenants both, that

landlords and tenants both need the support of social capital as well

as of private capital to make housing available in British Columbia.

there were no need for social capital now, there would be no need for a

rent increase. Why is that? Well, because, you see, we'd have a surplus

of rental accommodation. Why is that? Because private enterprise would

have built it. Why is that? Because there was money to be made. For

those three reasons there would be no need to debate any aspect of this

kind of bill. But the problem is that there is no money to be made, so

they're not going to build. When there's no building, there's no

surplus; and when there's no surplus, you create a condition in which

tenants are unfairly held to ransom, because they've nowhere else to

go. You create thereby a failure of public policy which is not

justified.

I'm persuaded that public and private capital can

together do the job and that private capital wants to do the job. The

hours I've spent with the members of HUDAC and the apartment owners'

association, with builders in my own riding, convince me that they're

absolutely sincere when they say they want to do the job and are

absolutely earnest when they say they want to get on with it. That's

the trade they know, the only business they have; that's the expertise

they offer, and that's the career they choose to follow; they want to

build housing. In my own opinion, let them get on with it. The only

exception I'd make, of course, is that they can't build wherever they

want. Specifically, they may not build on farmland. That's madness.

Apart

from the appropriateness of preserving farmland, the single issue

clearly remains that private enterprise should be permitted to get on

with the job. So should public enterprise. There's an important need

for that. It's not just in seniors' housing or co-op housing that

public capital has a role, although it most certainly does there too.

It is also in the field of opening up land, creating the economic

conditions that allow public and private capital together to do the job

of providing housing for the people of British Columbia.

Let

me repeat, Madam Speaker, that this government made a foolish error in

judgment when they abandoned the Housing Corporation of British

Columbia. You will recall that at the time they said: "There is no

longer a rental shortage in British Columbia. There is no housing

problem. Therefore we don't need the Housing Corporation." Well, I

recall an equally foolish statement made by the once, and now again,

Prime Minister of Canada who told us in 1976, wasn’t it, that he had

wrestled inflation to the ground and that inflation was a problem no

more. Well, that was an equally dumb statement; of course it proved not

to be true. Of course the statement of the then Minister of Municipal

Affairs proved not to be true, because he didn't know what he was

talking about. We now have the worst vacancy rate in urban British

Columbia that we have ever suffered. We now have a government that

refuses to reanimate the Housing Corporation of British Columbia, which

they never should have killed in the first place. We now have a

situation in which tenants who have no place else to go, and are thus

held to ransom, also have no choice but to pay a 40 percent rent

increase. Whose purposes does that serve, Madam Speaker? Who wins

benefit from that? Well, no one at all, least of all the government;

they simply become more and more unpopular. They're already unpopular

enough.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair, ]

When they

refuse to allocate public capital and when private capital will not be

spent, how do you build housing? Well, in the rental market apparently

you don't build it at all, because at least in my own riding, Mr.

Speaker, not much is being built. There is another remedy. So far I've

named two, and I make them as positive proposals to this government.

Let me restate them briefly. First of all, justify in a scientific and

public way, a documented way, the 40 percent rent increase from 7

percent to 10 percent; justify that.

AN HON. MEMBER: A 40 percent rent increase?

MR. BARBER: From 7 percent to 10 percent — that's an increase of 40 percent in the allowable rental increase; the minister knows that.

Secondly, reanimate the Housing Corporation of British

[ Page 2794 ]

Columbia

and thereby redeploy the public capital that must be invested in land,

in the servicing of land and the construction of housing upon it for

private and public purposes. The Housing Corporation of British

Columbia succeeded magnificently in the mid-seventies. It did a darned

good job for the people of this province. It was well run by guys who

came in from private business to run it on behalf of the people of

British Columbia. Congratulations to them. It's now been shut down, but

it can be reanimated. As one member of the opposition, I give my word

that if the government introduces a bill tomorrow to recreate or

teammate the Housing Corporation of British Columbia, I personally

would be content to let it go through really quickly — no problems, no

delay, only a few questions and much support. Why is that? Because it

was a good idea when the NDP brought it in, and it would be a good

thing if it were revived. If it's a good thing it deserves support —

that's all.

The third proposal is that the government be

prepared to use the legislative instrument called the Savings and Trust

Corporation of British Columbia, which has the opportunity in a novel

way, through the credit union movement, to make capital available,

which is otherwise untapped, for the purposes of constructing

residential accommodation in this province. That act, which was passed

by this House but not enacted by the government — which could be

enacted tomorrow by this administration — would provide for the

creation of a unique British Columbian enterprise. This enterprise

could tap the imagination, the capital and the energy of the private

and public sectors both, through the device of the credit union

movement, to build housing in British Columbia.

I wish that

the government would be prepared to forget its ancient traditional and

pointless ideological objections to a good idea. You know, the Old Man

was prepared to swallow his ideological objections and he created B.C.

Hydro. He did a good thing. God bless his soul; he did a good thing, a

good public enterprise achievement. The old Socreds were prepared to

take a second look; I ask the new Socreds and Liberals and Tories to

take a second look at their decision to shut down the Housing

Corporation of British Columbia. I ask them to reconsider and to

recreate, to revive and to reanimate it and to make it a real and

important force in the economic strategy that the people of British

Columbia want to have served. I ask them to justify the rent increases.

If they can be justified, tenants and landlords alike will agree that

in a time of inflation and recession, they might be necessary. However,

because they have not been justified, I can't support them, because I

find no evidence to support them at all. Who can say yes? How can any

member of this Legislature, in conscience, say yes to an increase of

from 7 to 10 percent, when there is no scientific basis that argues in

favour of it?

Mr. Speaker, what would happen if we

discovered that the scientific evidence persuaded us there should be a

decrease? Well, if in fact the allowable rent increase should be

lowered from 7.2 percent to, say, 6.4 percent — a figure that the

Speaker will recognize from a note that we got ourselves from the

Speaker a couple of weeks ago — how then would the government react?

Would they publish that information? Well, I think they might, because

they would perceive that that was popular — to lower the rents was a

popular thing. If it can be justified scientifically in these times of

both inflation and recession, fine, lower the rents. But there is no

justification yet presented. I don't hear a single interjection from a

member opposite. Not one.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Nobody is listening.

MR. BARBER:

They say nobody is listening, but they're certainly quick to reply.

Well, I think they are listening, through their third ear, provided by

the good doctor of science and satellites. I think they're listening. I

also think they're receiving correspondence from tenants who wonder how

the increase can be justified. They certainly are receiving

correspondence from people who have the public interest uppermost, and

who ask why it is that you shut down the Housing Corporation when you

falsely predicted the housing shortage was over. The government was

wrong when they did that. Why don't they admit their mistake? Why don't

they admit they were wrong when they said that more than two years ago?

Admit that they miscalculated, and be prepared to recreate a good

thing, which is what the NDP established. The Housing Corporation of

British Columbia was a good idea then, and it is, I think, a good idea

now.

Those are three perfectly positive, perfectly earnest

proposals that I have put forward to the government. If they were

prepared to adopt those or any of them, they would receive a heck of a

lot more public support for this bill than they currently have. They

would receive, I think, a lot of public recognition of their

willingness to take a second look, to reconsider, and to give credit

where it was due — in this case, to the previous administration that

had the foresight to create a full-fledged Ministry of Housing, and

that had the guts to create a Housing Corporation of British Columbia.

There

isn't a single member of the New Democratic caucus who feels private

enterprise does not have a role in providing housing. Every one of us

recognizes that the private sector has a darned important role here.

But the only thing that's been done to allow the private sector to get

on with their part of the job is to allow them an increase of from 7.2

to 10 percent. That's it. Well, with all respect, Mr. Speaker, that's

still not enough, they tell me. With all respect, this will have no

impact whatever on creating new housing. With all respect to the

government, the allowable rent increase will, I predict, build not one

new unit of housing, not a single one, because they can still get more

money at the bank just by letting it sit there and gather interest-free

dust. They can still make more money putting it in a sock marked "Bank

of British Columbia." So not only is this rent increase apparently

unjustified, as far as tenants go; it does nothing for landlords either

to assist them to do their job as members of the private economy who

want to build housing on a private capital basis.

Let me

restate, Mr. Speaker, that I personally have no objection at all to

private enterprise building housing. I think it's great. Let them do

it. Let them build it where it's wanted. Let them build it where it's

safe. Let them build it when it's needed. The point is that the

government seems not to recognize that it's needed and wanted now. If

they recognized that, this bill would have a number of other features;

it would have a number of other components; it would say a number of

other things. It would not simply say, give the landlords 10 percent

and they'll be content. This bill would not simply say what it does in

the other sections: clean up the problems with the rentalsman's office

regarding his authority in law, clean up the problems of residential

hotels, and other perfectly admirable, creditable and supportable stuff.

What this bill betrays, I guess, more than anything else is the unwillingness of this government to create, and in every

[ Page 2795 ]

appropriate

statute enunciate, a social and economic strategy that will build

housing. This statute could say and do many of those things. It could

certainly not say and do all of them. A great deal of other work is

required in other ministries. I freely concede that, and if that's part

of the minister's defence he needn't bother making it; I agree with

him. This bill can't do all those things. But it could do some of them,

and so could the minister. Leadership from that minister respecting the

need to create a partnership of private and public capital to build

housing could be found in this act, if the leadership could be found in

the cabinet. But it isn't, and it isn't.

Section by section,

specific features of this act are well worth supporting. I'll be voting

for them, and I'm pleased to do so. I do so in part because I've seen

at my own community office dozens and dozens of landlords and tenants —

chiefly tenants but occasionally landlords — who've presented these

problems and who may find remedy of them here. I am pleased to support

that.

What I would like to end with, though, is the request

that you allow us to be even more pleased with your government, first

of all by justifying this rent increase, secondly by recreating the

Housing Corporation of British Columbia, and thirdly by establishing

the B.C. Savings and Trust, which would create a unique partnership of

public and private capital to help this Legislature and every citizen

in the province to do what we all want, which is to obtain, as quickly

as possible, affordable and decent housing for human beings that need

it. It is as simple as that, and on that basis I would be proud to

support the whole bill.

MR. COCKE: I rise with a

certain amount of humour in my veins. I must say that I'm not quite as

accepting nor as optimistic as my young colleague who sits behind me.

That is refreshing, but I've been here 11 years and he's not been here

quite so long. I know those people across the way relatively well. One

of the reasons I have to smile today is the fact that I was here when

they voted against any aspect of the Landlord and Tenant Act. I smile

now when they come in with amendments to what was at the time, and is

still, a necessary aspect. I do agree with my young colleague that it

is not always a desirable situation to be in, having a Landlord and

Tenant Act. Having said that, I say it is absolutely essential in a

situation where you have zero vacancy rate, and we have zero vacancy

rate in much of this province, particularly in the lower mainland and

particularly in the Vancouver area of the lower mainland.

There

are some admirable aspects of this bill which will assist in

strengthening, to some extent, the old Landlord and Tenant Act, now

called the Residential Tenancy Act. I guess that the problem with this

whole question of setting rates and setting limits is that it is very

difficult to deal with Landlord A and Landlord B. Let me describe who

they are.

Landlord A is greedy, tough and doesn't really

care what he does to make a situation suit his particular pocketbook.

Landlord B is a relatively conscientious soul and would like to stay

within the limits and would also like to be thoughtful with his

tenants. It is very difficult to have

an act look after both of those

situations because the tough, greedy guy I've seen. That was one of my

problems with the original Landlord and Tenant Act. My problem now is

that some people manage to create enough fear within their buildings

that they can get away with a lot more than they should. Sometimes it

is very difficult to catch up with them.

There is another

aspect too, in terms of how you set the rates. I was pleased that my

young colleague brought up the question of how you decide to go from

7.2 to a 10 percent increase when we know perfectly well that, had I

bought a building in the west end of Vancouver 20 or even 10 years ago

and paid on those low-interest rate mortgages, possibly even getting

close to having it paid up, my expenditure in terms of that aspect

would be relatively low compared to a person who buys from me now the

very same building and pays the high interest rate and the high

property and building cost. The apartment building that might have sold

for a quarter of a million dollars, if we want to get into that

category, would very easily be selling for $1 million now. The mortgage

on the $1 million is going to be substantially more than the mortgage

on the quarter of a million dollars and the interest rate on the $1

million will be substantially higher than the interest rate was on the

quarter of a million dollars. That is the major problem that we have

here.

It strikes me that somehow or another we're going to

have to find ways of rate justification, so that we can feed a lot of

this material in. In any event, I sure would like to know where the

figures came from. I don't really think that the government has a

handle on it. Probably some more explanation would be desirable,

want to talk about two areas that I'm really concerned about. One of

them is selective tenancy and what the Residential Tenancy Act does to

remedy that situation. One way or another, landlords are getting around

any rules or any objectives that are set out in terms of providing

housing for specific groups. In a tough time like this, families with

children are in an absolute bind. To the landlord the most desirable

tenants are the limited families — one or two people — as opposed to a

family with two or three children running around. Also, I have seen

evidence of race and other means of judging people as being part of the

criteria for accepting tenants. I would sure like to see a situation

where we can remedy that. Now it cannot be remedied altogether, but it

certainly is being ignored, in my opinion, in any of the rule-making

that's going on.

The second thing is that I think what we

need here is what this government has been talking about for a long,

long time in order to assuage or in any way modify the problem we've

got out there with housing. One of the main reasons why we have such a

limited supply of housing is the fact that the government didn't keep a

promise they made when they first came into power in 1975. One of the

promises which that group made was that they would make Crown land

available. Now if anybody wants to follow the way they make Crown land

available, it's like hide-and-seek. I can't believe it, Mr. Speaker.

Very little ads; once in a while they're in a local newspaper, with a

limited time before the auction, and then they make three or four lots

available. It's absolutely shocking that this government, with their

particular direction, haven't made available, haven't serviced and

haven't really done anything with the Crown land in the lower mainland.

It's just incredible.

MR. BRUMMET: Agricultural land.

MR. COCKE:

Agricultural, my foot! That's the very kind of land that you people

make available. That's the problem with you. You have absolutely no

conscience whatsoever. You have absolutely no way of foreseeing the

future. You're just about as stunned as you said you were the other day

in the House.

[ Page 2796 ]

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about some of the land on Burke Mountain, one of the big cancellations.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: "Oh, no, no," the minister says.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: What's this got to do with this act?

MR. COCKE:

It's got this to do with this act. One of the reasons we are in this

bind is that we haven't been doing things in this province. You've got

a zero tenancy rate in Vancouver because we haven't been doing things

to back up our housing situation.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: What

section of the act are you dealing with?

MR. COCKE: It was your own incredible ignorance, Mr. Minister, that cancelled the housing act in this province.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: What

section of the act are you talking to?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm talking about this act in principle.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, are you?

MR. COCKE: A minister without principle wouldn't understand that.

The fact is, there are underlying consequences of the moves that you have made.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

On a point of order, I would ask that ridiculous member for New

Westminster to identify which minister he speaks of as "without

principle."

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I identified that minister, the minister in charge of the bill, and I withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Perhaps at the same time I could ask the minister to withdraw a remark

that I found unparliamentary towards the member for New Westminster.

Would the minister withdraw?

MR. COCKE: I don't require that, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair found it unparliamentary.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: In that he was ridiculous — is that what you're referring to?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's the unparliamentary remark, hon. member.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Certainly I would withdraw that if it's incorrect.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

At the same time, I will remind all members that although debate in

second reading allows an awful lot of latitude and it discusses in very

general principle the bill before us, it's very hard for the Chair to

accept debate that pertains to a minister other than the minister who

has presented the bill.

MR. COCKE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

agree that without much imagination one could not identify the

relationship of the availability of land for housing and the

availability of housing through our own Housing Corporation — to place

us in a position where we don't have this very tight vacancy situation.

One of the reasons we have to harden up on this sort of thing, this

kind of legislation, is that very fact. That is our problem. The first

member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) identified our displeasure — and we

certainly identified it at the time — with the cancellation of that

Housing Act.

One of the reasons that we now have to be very

highly concerned about fair play for tenants is that they cannot demand

fair play by competition. There is no competition in housing anymore.

If I want to get an apartment in Vancouver, I've got to grab the first

newspaper off the hot press in the morning and trust in God and luck

and so on, and I might just get in there in time to get it. Nine

chances out of ten I'm too late. It's when tenants are in that kind of

situation that they need all the protection that government can provide.

want to see our people properly housed. I want to see our people able

to go out and acquire property, build a house or even a co-op — or

whatever they want.

MR. BRUMMET: Your people?

MR. COCKE: I am talking about our people, the people in this province.

MR. BRUMMET: They're our people too.

MR. COCKE:

Yes, of course. When I say "ours, " I'm talking collectively — in this

House. You don't understand that, do you? There is a division in your

mind. In any event, I believe that should be the right and opportunity

of the people in this province — if that makes the member more

comfortable.

After the war, Great Britain had been bombed

off the face of the earth. Aneurin Bevan, who also introduced the first

medicare act in our part of the world, had one other responsibility.

That was to provide housing — with very little help from the United

States, as many of you remember. What a monumental task! Yet, at the

same time, so much of it was done. It was done because there was

direction from a housing ministry or housing corporation.

I'm

telling you, you're not going to need this nearly as much. The first

member for Surrey and Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm) knows that as well as I do. Our big problem is that we don't have

competition at the other end. He realizes that and that is one of the

reasons why we have to get into this sort of thing.

It is

very difficult in

an act like this, as I said before, to deal with this

whole question of return of capital, because it all depends on when the

capital went in. If it went in 20 years ago, then the person who made

that investment has an entirely different outlook than the guy making

it today. One of the areas where I don't quite agree with my colleague

from Victoria is where HUDAC indicated to him that a 3 percent return

on this kind of investment is inadequate. What they are talking about

is the 3 percent return vis-à-vis the expenses,

[ Page 2797 ]

etc.

One thing that most landlords always ignore is the rapid increase in

the value of their block or the value of their property; that is

another factor.

I don't want to cry too many bitter tears

until I see something provided in this House whereby the minister can

tell us the reason for going from 7 to 10 percent. In some cases it may

be right, in some cases it may be wrong; but I wish the minister would

deal with that when he closes debate on this.

I would also

like to compliment the government on including the mobile-home

situation here. We have all seen the mishandling that has occurred in

the whole mobile-home situation — people denied access to their rights

over and over again. I do hope that these amendments are going to

provide them with some protection, both in terms of the rate of their

rent and also in terms of protecting their homesite. Of course, I am

also pleased with the fact that people living in hotels — that is, the

long-term situations — are also going to have their rights protected.

Having

said that, I just want to say one more word, and that would be that we

are going to vote for this. But we do have some expectation from that

minister, and our expectation is to have him answer a few questions in

terms of how he arrives at his rate setting, and whether or not there

could be some way of managing that in terms of different situations.

With that.... We'll see what happens when he sums up. Failing that, I

guess we can have more to say when we get to the committee stage.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) defers to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds on Bill 21.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the principle of this bill, I just want to

deal with a couple of areas where it affects the constituency of

Burnaby-Edmonds. One of the problems that we're having has to do with

rental agencies — those agencies that advertise in the newspaper that

they have apartments and various accommodation for rent and charge a

fee. If you go to their offices and pay your fee, usually you are told

that they will be able to find you accommodation at a rent which you

can afford, which is the type of accommodation that you are looking for

and in the location that you want to be situated. After paying the fee,

usually that is the end of the situation.

Two of these

agencies in particular, Rentex and Homelocators, operated for a period

of time in the Vancouver area. The municipality of Vancouver was able

to amend its charter — because it operates under the Vancouver Charter

— in such a way as to make it unprofitable for those agencies to

continue to operate there. So they moved out of Vancouver and now

they've moved into Burnaby. A number of people have appeared before the

Burnaby city council asking that a similar kind of amendment happen in

Burnaby. What the amendment would ask is that the rental agencies

either deliver in terms of their promises of finding the required

accommodation or be forced to refund the $35 or $45 fee, as the case

may be.

Apparently this is not possible because Burnaby operates under a different

act than the Vancouver Charter. I had hoped that this particular bill, which

is supposed to protect the renters and tenants in the province, would have included

in it some kind of protection from these kinds of rental agencies. If one looks

in The Columbian newspaper under "accommodation for rent," one finds

that most of the suites, apartments and houses advertised are advertised either

by Rentex or Homelocators. One also knows when one speaks to the consumers who

use these services that they're behaving exactly the same way in Burnaby

as they used to behave in Vancouver. Apparently the municipality is finding

that it is having some difficulty in dealing with that.

The reason I thought that the bill would have included that is because the rentalsman himself, in an interview in the Vancouver Sun

on May 22 of this year, spoke about the fact that these rental agencies

were a snare. He spoke about the fact that because the vacancy rate is

so low — in fact, in Burnaby it is 0.2 — and accommodation is so hard

to find, these agencies are able to prey on people. As my colleague

from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) mentioned, even if one goes down to

the offices of the newspaper and picks up the newspaper hot off the

press and phones immediately, the chances are that any accommodation

advertised in the paper either would have been gone or there is a

waiting list, because now landlords are deciding that they do not take

the first person who applies for the accommodation; they like to go

through the list of people who would like their suite and decide for

themselves who they would like to have. So I'm wondering whether the

minister would consider introducing an amendment to this piece of

legislation that would make it possible for municipalities outside the

Vancouver area to control the activities of these rental agencies.

Specifically, I'm talking about those rental agencies that charge a fee

but give no guarantee in terms of being able to deliver the services

that they have promised. I know the minister knows about Rentex and

Homelocators, because they have a very long history and they have come

to his attention a number of times.

The other issue that I

wanted to raise, Mr. Speaker, deals specifically.... . I'm going to

speak about one particular housing unit, but I'm just using it as an

example, because it certainly applies to a number of various areas.

There is a unit in the Burnaby area which is known as Silvan Gardens.

It has 150 suites in it. I first brought it to the minister's attention

through a question on the floor when the managers of that apartment

block refused to rent to a woman who was a single-parent mother on

welfare. The explanation given at that time was that the owners had

decided they did not want to rent to welfare recipients. The housing

situation was sufficiently tight that they were having no difficulty in

getting tenants, and since they could choose what tenants they had,

they decided that they did not want to rent to welfare recipients.

That

particular building actually is managed by a trust company, an

insurance company. We tried to have a meeting between the manager and

the welfare office in the Burnaby area. The supervisor of welfare

agreed to meet with the manager, but the manager declined the

invitation. At the time I asked the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich), who is responsible for the Human Rights Code, whether it

would be possible to build into human rights legislation protection for

this and other groups from discrimination in terms of housing

accommodation. I was told by that minister that really that was an

issue which really should be covered by the minister responsible for

the Residential Tenancy Act.

I put the question to the

minister of consumer services and asked that in terms of amending the

Residential Tenancy Act he find some way to build into the amendment

some protection against discrimination for people who are on well-

[ Page 2798 ]

fare

and also for families with small children. Again I want to stress that

the housing situation in Burnaby is extremely critical; the vacancy

rate is as low as it is in the greater Vancouver area. In fact, there

are not even enough units on the drawing board to begin to meet the

needs of the people moving into that area. The exact figure we have for

it is that the rate is at 0.2 percent, and, in fact, in terms of

planned building for the future, it's not going to come anywhere near

the accommodation that's needed.

Not long afterwards, a

number of tenants in that particular building met with me in my office

with other complaints. Now, as I mentioned earlier, this complex has

150 suites in it. Of those 86 had complaints which were drawn to the

attention of the rentalsman, and the rentalsman promised to

investigate. We discovered, Mr. Speaker, to our dismay, that there is

only one inspector attached to the rentalsman's office. In fact, even

though the fire marshal had contacted this life insurance company in

1978 and sent a carbon copy of that letter to the rentalsman, even

though these tenants themselves had contacted the rentalsman in

September 1979 and listed the 86 suites that needed work done on

them.... And I'm talking about serious things like wiring that wasn't

working, the stove when you turned it on that was sending out sparks,

the floor rotted around the bathroom and water running from one suite

downstairs into the other suite and into the suite below that. Although

there was documented evidence for these 86 complaints — 86 suites out

of a total 150 — because there was only one inspector, nothing actually

could happen until after those suites were inspected.

letter was sent to the insurance company which manages this building. A

carbon copy was sent to the rentalsman asking whether it would be

possible for these tenants to meet with the managers of the building in

the presence of the rentalsman to see whether there would be any way

that one could accelerate the repairs that were necessary. Because some

of it was actually quite dangerous. There were no outside lights, for

example. There were no lights on the exits. One of the reasons the fire

marshal condemned it was because of the lack of outside lighting. Well,

again, the whole process was slowed down because there is only one

inspector.

Finally the inspection was completed; the report

was turned in by the rentalsman. And still nothing is happening. I was

speaking to some members of the tenants' organization this afternoon,

and a couple of patchwork things have been done, and that is it. And

until that one inspector has an opportunity to go and inspect again to

find out whether the repairs have been carried out satisfactorily, we

can anticipate that the life insurance company involved is not going to

be doing very much about it.

I'm raising this issue, Mr.

Speaker, because surely to goodness it's possible for the minister to

see that one inspector is just not enough to deal with all the

complaints that come into the rentalsman's office from the Vancouver

and greater Vancouver area. T